UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Mr Apples on May 17, 2021, 11:12:37 PM
-
Stumbled upon quite a few historical articles last night which might be of interest to the boardmembers on this site. The first one features an interview by Kimberley Thomson circa ‘06. Now, I presume most participants on this forum are aware of KT as LM’s ‘other girlfriend’ in the case, but wondered how many knew that Luke was meant to have been meeting her soon after June 30th, 2003? Was this a separate arrangement from the holiday that was cancelled — the same place where he originally met Kimberley the previous year? Now, unless someone can prove otherwise, I can’t question the veracity of the contents of this particular article. Sure, the interview is a tad obtuse, and KT was a bit on the young side to be having a child (at 17), but that doesn’t make her a liar or any less a member of society. And bearing in mind that police could prove, from retrieved telecommunication logs, that LM had made 78 calls to KT between Jan ‘03 & Jun ‘03 (LM allegedly lied about this), as well as the other text messages we all know about. It’s also noteworthy that the article out states that Judith ran out of court screaming when she heard the KT evidence. What do you take from the article below?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+want+Luke+to+know+that+he+hasn%27t+ruined+my+life%3B+EXCLUSIVE+KILLER%27S...-a0155357337
Oh, also, here’s another very interesting article, featuring one of Jodi’s closest friends in high school at the time. The article highlights that Jodi found it weird the amount of knives Luke had in his bedroom and, possibly more significantly, that Kirsten recollected that Jodi had been ‘a bit quiet’ on the day of 30.06.03. Thoughts?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
-
Stumbled upon quite a few historical articles last night which might be of interest to the boardmembers on this site. The first one features an interview by Kimberley Thomson circa ‘06. Now, I presume most participants on this forum are aware of KT as LM’s ‘other girlfriend’ in the case, but wondered how many knew that Luke was meant to have been meeting her that fateful night on June 30th, 2003? Significant? I most definitely think so. Now, unless someone can prove otherwise, I can’t question the veracity of the contents of this particular article. Sure, the interview is a tad obtuse, and KT was a bit on the young side to be having a child (at 17), but that doesn’t make her a liar or any less a member of society. And bearing in mind that police could prove, from retrieved telecommunication logs, that LM had made 78 calls to KT between Jan ‘03 & Jun ‘03 (LM allegedly lied about this), as well as the other text messages we all know about. There’s an article out there which said that Judith ran out of court screaming when she heard the KT evidence (can’t find the link at the moment). What do you take from the article below?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+want+Luke+to+know+that+he+hasn%27t+ruined+my+life%3B+EXCLUSIVE+KILLER%27S...-a0155357337
Oh, also, here’s another very interesting article, featuring one of Jodi’s closest friends in high school at the time. The article highlights that Jodi found it weird the amount of knives Luke had in his bedroom and, possibly more significantly, that Kirsten recollected that Jodi had been ‘a bit quiet’ on the day (30.06.03). Thoughts?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Do you mean this sentence Mr Apples?
‘ If Luke had kept that visit to me would I have been dead now? Would he have still killed Jodi? Would we still both be alive? I don't know. ’
I don’t think KT was referring to the 30th but a visit that had been arranged to the town where she lived by Luke and his family which, I believe, had been cancelled. I also believe Luke and Jodi were supposed to have a birthday sleepover at a friend’s house that weekend instead.
As to Jodi’s friend’s interview, it says that the Sunday Mail was with Kirsten when the guilty verdict came through. To me this suggests that an arrangement had been made before hand for an exclusive, paid for interview and the Sunday Mail were protecting their investment.
Was she quoted accurately by the journalist? Were things ‘spiced up’ to add interest? Who knows but I have heard time and again individuals complaining about being misquoted in the press.
-
Stumbled upon quite a few historical articles last night which might be of interest to the boardmembers on this site. The first one features an interview by Kimberley Thomson circa ‘06. Now, I presume most participants on this forum are aware of KT as LM’s ‘other girlfriend’ in the case, but wondered how many knew that Luke was meant to have been meeting her soon after June 30th, 2003? Was this a separate arrangement from the holiday that was cancelled — the same place where he originally met Kimberley the previous year? Now, unless someone can prove otherwise, I can’t question the veracity of the contents of this particular article. Sure, the interview is a tad obtuse, and KT was a bit on the young side to be having a child (at 17), but that doesn’t make her a liar or any less a member of society. And bearing in mind that police could prove, from retrieved telecommunication logs, that LM had made 78 calls to KT between Jan ‘03 & Jun ‘03 (LM allegedly lied about this), as well as the other text messages we all know about. It’s also noteworthy that the article out states that Judith ran out of court screaming when she heard the KT evidence. What do you take from the article below?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+want+Luke+to+know+that+he+hasn%27t+ruined+my+life%3B+EXCLUSIVE+KILLER%27S...-a0155357337
Oh, also, here’s another very interesting article, featuring one of Jodi’s closest friends in high school at the time. The article highlights that Jodi found it weird the amount of knives Luke had in his bedroom and, possibly more significantly, that Kirsten recollected that Jodi had been ‘a bit quiet’ on the day of 30.06.03. Thoughts?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
'Jodi thought Luke's mum was as mad as a hatter and said she knew Corinne was smoking a lot of cannabis
She also drank a lot of alcohol - something Sandra Lean also commented on
-
‘But only weeks into the relationship, Jodi became worried about Mitchell's close friendship with Laura Wightman, a girl he would later take to her graveside.
Kirsten said: 'Laura was with Luke a lot and once Jodi heard that he might have been cheating on her but I think she spoke to him and they sorted it out.'
-
Stumbled upon quite a few historical articles last night which might be of interest to the boardmembers on this site. The first one features an interview by Kimberley Thomson circa ‘06. Now, I presume most participants on this forum are aware of KT as LM’s ‘other girlfriend’ in the case, but wondered how many knew that Luke was meant to have been meeting her soon after June 30th, 2003? Was this a separate arrangement from the holiday that was cancelled — the same place where he originally met Kimberley the previous year? Now, unless someone can prove otherwise, I can’t question the veracity of the contents of this particular article. Sure, the interview is a tad obtuse, and KT was a bit on the young side to be having a child (at 17), but that doesn’t make her a liar or any less a member of society. And bearing in mind that police could prove, from retrieved telecommunication logs, that LM had made 78 calls to KT between Jan ‘03 & Jun ‘03 (LM allegedly lied about this), as well as the other text messages we all know about. It’s also noteworthy that the article out states that Judith ran out of court screaming when she heard the KT evidence. What do you take from the article below?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+want+Luke+to+know+that+he+hasn%27t+ruined+my+life%3B+EXCLUSIVE+KILLER%27S...-a0155357337
Oh, also, here’s another very interesting article, featuring one of Jodi’s closest friends in high school at the time. The article highlights that Jodi found it weird the amount of knives Luke had in his bedroom and, possibly more significantly, that Kirsten recollected that Jodi had been ‘a bit quiet’ on the day of 30.06.03. Thoughts?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
There was also another girl called Kim
-
Do you mean this sentence Mr Apples?
‘ If Luke had kept that visit to me would I have been dead now? Would he have still killed Jodi? Would we still both be alive? I don't know. ’
I don’t think KT was referring to the 30th but a visit that had been arranged to the town where she lived by Luke and his family which, I believe, had been cancelled. I also believe Luke and Jodi were supposed to have a birthday sleepover at a friend’s house that weekend instead.
As to Jodi’s friend’s interview, it says that the Sunday Mail was with Kirsten when the guilty verdict came through. To me this suggests that an arrangement had been made before hand for an exclusive, paid for interview and the Sunday Mail were protecting their investment.
Was she quoted accurately by the journalist? Were things ‘spiced up’ to add interest? Who knows but I have heard time and again individuals complaining about being misquoted in the press.
Apologies, faithlilly. I suffered a bit of momentary ambiguity when reading the article initially. I also read another article which clearly stated that Luke was meant to have been meeting with KT on the night of the 30.06.03 (still trying to find it; will post it if I can get it online again). I have altered my subject heading accordingly and some of the body of my opening post. Some of these articles are poorly written — or maybe I’m just tired and need to call it a night. Anyway, discuss away .......
-
Why doesn’t Sandra Lean mention this ⬇️
Kirsten's mum Carol said: 'Jodi's mum phoned the night she went missing to ask if Jodi was at our house.
'We both knew then something was wrong. Next day when we heard a body had been found I just knew it was Jodi.
-
There was also another girl called Kim
A FORMER girlfriend of Luke Mitchell has told how he held a knife to her throat and threatened: "Dont move . . . or Ill gut you."
Just months before he stabbed Jodi Jones to death, Mitchell grabbed the girl and pressed his prized Swiss Army knife against the frightened 14-year-olds neck.
The terrifying incident was just one example of Mitchells aggressive and unpredictable behaviour which disturbed his friends.
The pretty 14-year-old, who dated Mitchell for about five months in 2003, told how the teenage killer pounced on her in a community hall in the Dalkeith area.
The girl - who asked to remain anonymous - was walking alone through the hall, where the pair attended a youth club together, when he grabbed her from behind. He held the knife to her throat as he dragged her into a side room.
"I didnt know if he was joking around or not to begin with," she said. "He said: Dont move or Ill gut you. At first I thought he was just mucking about, but then I started to feel threatened.
"I was sore round my neck, it was bright red afterwards. He had grabbed me round the neck with his arm and held the knife at my throat, saying he was going to cut me and stuff like that.
"I was nipping his arm to get him off me and after a couple of minutes he let me go. I went outside and just tried to ignore him, but then he came out as if it was all a laugh and said sorry.
"There was no reason for him to do it. He just pulled the knife from his pocket and grabbed me. I thought it was really strange."
Soon after the incident, in May, 2003, the girl ended the fledgling relationship - just a month before Mitchell killed Jodi.
She broke things off after increasingly seeing a darker side to his personality. The final straw came when a friend told her Mitchell was seeing another girl - who she is now sure was Jodi.
It now appears Mitchell was seeing at least three different girls at the same time. The murder trial jury heard that the teenage killer had also been seeing Kim Thomson, a 15-year-old from Kenmore, Perthshire, who looked strikingly like Jodi.
Mitchell had stayed in touch with Kim, who considered him as her boyfriend, after meeting her on holiday in the summer of 2002.
The ex-girlfriend who Mitchell threatened with a knife told the Evening News she had initially found him charming, attractive and "basically a nice bloke".
The pair were both 14 and went to the same youth club.
"When I first saw him, everybody in the room was chatting and we started talking - asking whats your name? and that sort of thing," she said.
"We got each others phone numbers and started texting each other quite a lot. He was good-looking and I liked talking to him. I thought he was really nice."
The teenager followed the same goth-style fashion as Mitchell at the time, but shrugged it off as a fad and changed her image as she got older. She said they had got on well for a while, but then things had started to change.
"
He sometimes showed a side that wasnt him. He was quite aggressive to me and to other people," she added.
"He was really bad-tempered and he was totally unpredictable. He didnt want to be told what to do. I knew he carried weapons with him and he had a Swiss Army knife. I did wonder why he had it, but I never questioned him at all."
The ex-girlfriend said shed had little contact with Mitchell since they broke up, but that he had threatened her friends when he saw them in the street.
She added: "When I heard he was a suspect I knew he must have been going out with Jodi when he was seeing me.
"I was really upset when I heard what he was supposed to have done.
"At first, I never thought he could have done it. But, as all the stuff started to come together, I started to think it was possible, that he could do this, because of the way he acted and what hed done to me."
The full article contains 759 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Last Updated: 21 January 2005 2:52 PM
-
‘But only weeks into the relationship, Jodi became worried about Mitchell's close friendship with Laura Wightman, a girl he would later take to her graveside.
Kirsten said: 'Laura was with Luke a lot and once Jodi heard that he might have been cheating on her but I think she spoke to him and they sorted it out.'
Jodi
Laura
Kim T
Kim
Gemma
Luke Mitchell stated
What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.
-
'Jodi thought Luke's mum was as mad as a hatter and said she knew Corinne was smoking a lot of cannabis
She also drank a lot of alcohol - something Sandra Lean also commented on
Does Sandra Lean mention Corinne Mitchell’s potential addiction to cannabis in her book or does she only refer to the teenagers?
-
What Sandra Lean won’t tell your ⬇️
’Luke Mitchell lied to police about his affair with a lookalike of murdered 14-year-old Jodi Jones, appeal judges heard.
He did not want officers to know he had spent three hours on the phone to Kimberley Thomson in Kenmore, Perthshire, immediately after an evening of sex with Jodi, said advocate depute John Beckett QC, for the Crown.
Although it might be speculation, Kimberley could have been the reason for a fight with Jodi, Mr Beckett told the judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
Mitchell, 19, is trying to overturn his conviction for the killing in Dalkeith, West Lothian, in June 2003.
The jury at his trial in 2004 heard Mitchell was planning to visit Kenmore during the school summer holidays, days after Jodi's death in June 2003.
The trial also heard neither girl seemed to know about the other.
Mr Beckett told the appeal judges: "It offers a possible explanation for conflict with Jodi at the time. "If he was going to disappear to Kenmore to visit a girl Jodi didn't know anything about, the potential for conflict was there."
The judges were informed Mitchell told police investigating the murder he had not spoken to Kimberley since January 2003, but records showed 79 calls between then and the end of June.
There was also a Valentine's Day visit.
Just two days before her murder, Jodi left Mitchell's house, by taxi, about 10pm. After that there was a series of long telephone calls, totalling more than three hours.
Mr Beckett said it was an example of how Mitchell was prepared to lie, even in the face of known evidence.
Earlier, the court heard the fact Mitchell led members of Jodi's family to where her body was found was "a cornerstone" of the case against him.
The QC said his story about finding Jodi was contradicted by the girl's gran, Alice Walker, Jodi's sister, Janine, and Janine's fiance, Steven Kelly.
Mr Beckett also claimed Mitchell had later lied six times when questioned by police about the find.
The hearing continues.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12799875.judges-told-mitchell-lied-about-affair/
-
What Sandra Lean won’t tell your ⬇️
’Luke Mitchell lied to police about his affair with a lookalike of murdered 14-year-old Jodi Jones, appeal judges heard.
He did not want officers to know he had spent three hours on the phone to Kimberley Thomson in Kenmore, Perthshire, immediately after an evening of sex with Jodi, said advocate depute John Beckett QC, for the Crown.
Although it might be speculation, Kimberley could have been the reason for a fight with Jodi, Mr Beckett told the judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
Mitchell, 19, is trying to overturn his conviction for the killing in Dalkeith, West Lothian, in June 2003.
The jury at his trial in 2004 heard Mitchell was planning to visit Kenmore during the school summer holidays, days after Jodi's death in June 2003.
The trial also heard neither girl seemed to know about the other.
Mr Beckett told the appeal judges: "It offers a possible explanation for conflict with Jodi at the time. "If he was going to disappear to Kenmore to visit a girl Jodi didn't know anything about, the potential for conflict was there."
The judges were informed Mitchell told police investigating the murder he had not spoken to Kimberley since January 2003, but records showed 79 calls between then and the end of June.
There was also a Valentine's Day visit.
Just two days before her murder, Jodi left Mitchell's house, by taxi, about 10pm. After that there was a series of long telephone calls, totalling more than three hours.
Mr Beckett said it was an example of how Mitchell was prepared to lie, even in the face of known evidence.
Earlier, the court heard the fact Mitchell led members of Jodi's family to where her body was found was "a cornerstone" of the case against him.
The QC said his story about finding Jodi was contradicted by the girl's gran, Alice Walker, Jodi's sister, Janine, and Janine's fiance, Steven Kelly.
Mr Beckett also claimed Mitchell had later lied six times when questioned by police about the find.
The hearing continues.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12799875.judges-told-mitchell-lied-about-affair/
While it is unfair to compare a 14-year-old’s emotional and physical involvement in intimate relationships to that of an adult’s (I’m sure some of us two-timed or were two-timed at least once back when we were teenagers), it is worth noting that is was proved that LM had lied about his contact with KT (the logs detailing his phone calls to her between jan ‘03 and jun ‘03 being a prime example). Per se, the lying about their relationship may not have been the most crucial of evidence, but when combined with all of the other evidence it does become important.
-
As to Jodi’s friend’s interview, it says that the Sunday Mail was with Kirsten when the guilty verdict came through. To me this suggests that an arrangement had been made before hand for an exclusive, paid for interview and the Sunday Mail were protecting their investment.
Was she quoted accurately by the journalist? Were things ‘spiced up’ to add interest? Who knows but I have heard time and again individuals complaining about being misquoted in the press.
It’s hard to answer your questions, as we’ll never know. Each journo obviously differs in their approach, and some are more dignified, accurate, truthful, objective and better at writing than others (some, as you know, put their own bias & spin on it, as well as writing inadequately and inaccurately). However, I don’t see any alarm bells in the Kirsten Ford article. The only thing iffy I can think of is Kirsten’s use of the word ‘disturbed’ in regards to Jodi’s opinion of Luke’s knife collection; Jodi said she found it ‘weird’, not ‘disturbing’.
-
It’s hard to answer your questions, as we’ll never know. Each journo obviously differs in their approach, and some are more dignified, accurate, truthful, objective and better at writing than others (some, as you know, put their own bias & spin on it, as well as writing inadequately and inaccurately). However, I don’t see any alarm bells in the Kirsten Ford article. The only thing iffy I can think of is Kirsten’s use of the word ‘disturbed’ in regards to Jodi’s opinion of Luke’s knife collection; Jodi said she found it ‘weird’, not ‘disturbing’.
I think in an interview such as this where someone has been convicted of such a horrendous crime there is a danger that recollections are coloured by what has just occurred....of attaching a sinister premise to an action or event that you wouldn’t have before the verdict and, unfortunately, no matter what approach the journalist took, with Luke’s conviction, the interview was never going to be balanced.
-
I think in an interview such as this where someone has been convicted of such a horrendous crime there is a danger that recollections are coloured by what has just occurred....of attaching a sinister premise to an action or event that you wouldn’t have before the verdict and, unfortunately, no matter what approach the journalist took, with Luke’s conviction, the interview was never going to be balanced.
Yeah, fair enough. I agree, to an extent. I think the comments regarding Jodi being ‘a bit quiet’ that day were probably influenced by what she experienced at court and her exposure to the case in its entirety at the time. Believe the same is probably true for the ‘disturbed’ comment.
Btw, faithlilly, what is the one single, solitary piece of evidence from this case that makes you doubt Luke? I’ve read some posts of yours that put forward a case for Luke’s innocence, but is there one piece that makes you doubt this stance, doubt his innocence?
-
Yeah, fair enough. I agree, to an extent. I think the comments regarding Jodi being ‘a bit quiet’ that day were probably influenced by what she experienced at court and her exposure to the case in its entirety at the time. Believe the same is probably true for the ‘disturbed’ comment.
Btw, faithlilly, what is the one single, solitary piece of evidence from this case that makes you doubt Luke? I’ve read some posts of yours that put forward a case for Luke’s innocence, but is there one piece that makes you doubt this stance, doubt his innocence?
For me there is no single piece of evidence in the public domain that puts Luke’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not to say that Luke was without fault, he was dishonest when the need arouse but what teenager isn’t and he certainly seems to have enjoyed the attention of the opposite sex but that does not make him a killer.
The fact that the PF refused permission for charges to be brought against Luke in September 2003 and that it took a further six months to gain that permission raises red flags for me and speaks of a lack of real evidence. Some say that the length of the trial proves the strength of the case but for me it’s the opposite. The case against Luke was so wafer thin that a huge amount of tiny, inconsequential pieces of evidence were needed just to bring back a majority verdict. Bottles of urine, Marilyn Manson, satanism...if it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable. If the Crown truly had had a strong case it should have been able to bring about a resolution to the trial quickly. As we know that didn’t happen.
-
So let’s say the campaign is successful and Luke’s conviction is overturned and he is released- would you be quite happy letting him babysit the grandkids while you go out for the evening?
-
For me there is no single piece of evidence in the public domain that puts Luke’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not to say that Luke was without fault, he was dishonest when the need arouse but what teenager isn’t and he certainly seems to have enjoyed the attention of the opposite sex but that does not make him a killer.
The fact that the PF refused permission for charges to be brought against Luke in September 2003 and that it took a further six months to gain that permission raises red flags for me and speaks of a lack of real evidence. Some say that the length of the trial proves the strength of the case but for me it’s the opposite. The case against Luke was so wafer thin that a huge amount of tiny, inconsequential pieces of evidence were needed just to bring back a majority verdict. Bottles of urine, Marilyn Manson, satanism...if it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable. If the Crown truly had had a strong case it should have been able to bring about a resolution to the trial quickly. As we know that didn’t happen.
You (all) consistently say this was a flimsy case - lasted 9 weeks on the basis of rubbish. Yet you fail completely to explain with any conviction a single part of the Mitchells actions for that evening. You most certainly do not explain, with any conviction why the police fitted up LM. For first of all, you actually have to explain every single piece of their testimony. Every piece of information they gave with believable conviction, do you not. You ask for this to do with every other area of evidence? - Mitchells first surely? You are saying everyone else was air brushed over but not them? So if all is well, then you should see no need to air brush them over? To shore over those holes by way of extraordinary explanations?
Rather than consistently moving away from the gaping holes in every part of their story - whilst wanting to know irrelevant details of AB's activities after this sighting. Whilst constantly striving to find areas of lies in these others with "not as honest as you think eh?" When you yourself have actually lied in an attempt to scrape up some lie from them. Where you clearly stated "Judith told the police her daughter had 'never' walked this path alone" - the problem with this Faithlilly, is, if as you claim this case was wafer thin, that there was no evidence at all against LM - why do you need to lie? in an attempt to show this to be the case? And it is not the only blatant lie you have told. Why has Ms Lean lied about this search trio of walking passed the cousins and so forth, why has Ms Mitchell lied? - why do people whom profess to seek 'Truth and Justice' find it necessary to lie? In their attempt to show LM innocent - They/you should be able to speak with clarity, on explaining all that the Mitchells said to be true? And then move onto the areas of doubt you hold around the eye witness testimony and so forth. Not the other way around. You need to show they were speaking the truth.
It should be clear and precise - bang, bang, bang - here is what the Mithcells were doing, here is the truth. Straight from them. None of this well it might have been, or maybe this and I think it was probably this. Speaking constantly for them, and constantly excusing and given obtuse reasons for the lies? by adding lies to it?
Like Gordo - Speaking of the mystery man - 'we think he was sent after her?' Well that explains everything then. Sent after her for what, that she did not see him, that she went into the woods with them and on it goes. - These conspiracy theories, do they stem closer to home?
You know what I am beginning to think, is that SM may very well have owned a grey hoodie? This constant talk of scrapyards and disposal, a mechanic. This constant talk of very little, in the way of any actual proof as to where he was from the moment he left his friend. Of LM having to ask his mum if his brother was home. Of neither you nor SL or anyone else, being able to state with clarity what time SM was supposed to have left his house - for no one actually knows. Of SM wanting the police to think he had been in his house from 3.30pm?
For whichever way you look at that ever changing story - is is clearly made up. And it is the only area, that makes you wonder if the police actually got the wrong person, was it the wrong brother? Or if they were in fact colluded in some way? - this constant talk of more than one person being involved? And we know the strive comes right from the Mitchells to make people look away from them - Of drugs? who supplied SM, who supplied Luke and who supplied CM? And you want to know what AB was doing in her house after the sighting? - We want to know exactly what went on the Mitchell house. So here is your opportunity, yet again - to explain with sense and clarity this dinner tale from 5.05pm until LM leaving at 5.45pm in those first accounts and of SM claiming to arrive home at 3.30pm - to then move onto statement no 4 - where everything became squeezed into 15mins and the story had changed 4 times in a matter of days?
You quote some quasi truth? - again closer to home? One may consistently bank on those, who simply believed tabloid trash, for it to be said enough to become fact in their minds - Of bottles of urine, satanic worship and Manson. Where one simplifies this case to the point of ridicule. Then uses the exact same methods, where the majority of support comes from those very same mindsets? But mostly Faithlilly all and everything is aimed at distraction - distracting away from every part of the testimony that the Mitchells gave themselves. Where the suspicion began and remained. From the moment LM calmly and collectively spoke to the emergency services that evening. It was never to do with some ridiculous notion that one policeman out of three people noted "with the boyfriend" It was from LM himself.
-
You (all) consistently say this was a flimsy case - lasted 9 weeks on the basis of rubbish. Yet you fail completely to explain with any conviction a single part of the Mitchells actions for that evening. You most certainly do not explain, with any conviction why the police fitted up LM. For first of all, you actually have to explain every single piece of their testimony. Every piece of information they gave with believable conviction, do you not. You ask for this to do with every other area of evidence? - Mitchells first surely? You are saying everyone else was air brushed over but not them? So if all is well, then you should see no need to air brush them over? To shore over those holes by way of extraordinary explanations?
Believable conviction? AB unable, or unwilling, to identify Luke as the youth she saw or the tears of LF caught out in her lies? The ‘ misinterpretation’ of JaJ’s first statements by the police or JF and his virtual amnesia. Believable conviction..not a bit of it.
Rather than consistently moving away from the gaping holes in every part of their story - whilst wanting to know irrelevant details of AB's activities after this sighting. Whilst constantly striving to find areas of lies in these others with "not as honest as you think eh?" When you yourself have actually lied in an attempt to scrape up some lie from them. Where you clearly stated "Judith told the police her daughter had 'never' walked this path alone" - the problem with this Faithlilly, is, if as you claim this case was wafer thin, that there was no evidence at all against LM - why do you need to lie? in an attempt to show this to be the case? And it is not the only blatant lie you have told. Why has Ms Lean lied about this search trio of walking passed the cousins and so forth, why has Ms Mitchell lied? - why do people whom profess to seek 'Truth and Justice' find it necessary to lie? In their attempt to show LM innocent - They/you should be able to speak with clarity, on explaining all that the Mitchells said to be true? And then move onto the areas of doubt you hold around the eye witness testimony and so forth. Not the other way around. You need to show they were speaking the truth.
Except I have never posted that Judith ever told the police that her daughter ‘never’ walked that path alone. Of course if I’ve said it you will be able prove it.
It should be clear and precise - bang, bang, bang - here is what the Mithcells were doing, here is the truth. Straight from them. None of this well it might have been, or maybe this and I think it was probably this. Speaking constantly for them, and constantly excusing and given obtuse reasons for the lies? by adding lies to it?
Like Gordo - Speaking of the mystery man - 'we think he was sent after her?' Well that explains everything then. Sent after her for what, that she did not see him, that she went into the woods with them and on it goes. - These conspiracy theories, do they stem closer to home?
I’ve no idea who ‘Gordo’ is or, indeed, what you are talking about.
You know what I am beginning to think, is that SM may very well have owned a grey hoodie? This constant talk of scrapyards and disposal, a mechanic. This constant talk of very little, in the way of any actual proof as to where he was from the moment he left his friend. Of LM having to ask his mum if his brother was home. Of neither you nor SL or anyone else, being able to state with clarity what time SM was supposed to have left his house - for no one actually knows. Of SM wanting the police to think he had been in his house from 3.30pm?
Who told the police about Shane being home later than first claimed and of fixing his friend’s car?
For whichever way you look at that ever changing story - is is clearly made up. And it is the only area, that makes you wonder if the police actually got the wrong person, was it the wrong brother? Or if they were in fact colluded in some way? - this constant talk of more than one person being involved? And we know the strive comes right from the Mitchells to make people look away from them - Of drugs? who supplied SM, who supplied Luke and who supplied CM? And you want to know what AB was doing in her house after the sighting? - We want to know exactly what went on the Mitchell house. So here is your opportunity, yet again - to explain with sense and clarity this dinner tale from 5.05pm until LM leaving at 5.45pm in those first accounts and of SM claiming to arrive home at 3.30pm - to then move onto statement no 4 - where everything became squeezed into 15mins and the story had changed 4 times in a matter of days?
You quote some quasi truth? - again closer to home? One may consistently bank on those, who simply believed tabloid trash, for it to be said enough to become fact in their minds - Of bottles of urine, satanic worship and Manson. Where one simplifies this case to the point of ridicule. Then uses the exact same methods, where the majority of support comes from those very same mindsets? But mostly Faithlilly all and everything is aimed at distraction - distracting away from every part of the testimony that the Mitchells gave themselves. Where the suspicion began and remained. From the moment LM calmly and collectively spoke to the emergency services that evening. It was never to do with some ridiculous notion that one policeman out of three people noted "with the boyfriend" It was from LM himself.
-
Please could we refrain from calling other posters liars. It's not nice. None of us know for certain what really happened that night.
Thank you.
-
Except I have never posted that Judith ever told the police that her daughter ‘never’ walked that path alone. Of course if I’ve said it you will be able prove it.
Apologies I used the word the police - whom exactly was it you were meaning? When you were stating Judith said this?
Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan’s Dyke path alone, Janine, under oath, testified that her motherknew fine well that she did. When DF asked her if she was sure she simply answered ‘yes’....so not quiet as honest as you’d have us believe. As an aside did Judith never ask the three searchers why they were searching the path as Jodi wasn’t allowed to walk there alone?
And where exactly is my dishonesty well documented? Are we referring to those recordings? Or of LM leading the search onto RDP? Or of just about anything I have said as I have not used transcripts? Those recordings were played. It makes no difference if you or anyone else believes me Faithlilly. They were played in court. And LM did lead this search party onto RDP, I have included AW and of her wishing to look properly. I have also stated that if AW had not wanted to search thoroughly at this point, whilst they were there - then one can be fairly sure they would have ended up on the path regardless - with something to use for the dog to scent with. It is not rocket science. And I will ask again, at what point in time did Judith Jones ban her daughter from using this path, why did she ban her?, what did she actually tell the police? You suggested I should read Judith Jones statements. You obviously have thus why I am asking you again, please. And what else had JaJ said in those statements? We know she was confused about these paths? - And we know without a shadow of doubt, the tactics a defence will use in an attempt to trip up witnesses - and on this occasion, it was to try and show that Jodi may have walked the path alone - to show favour upon LM, not to cause doubt in neither JuJ's testimony or that of her daughter - it was to show that Jodi may have disobeyed her mother - nothing more. As with AW's testimony. When she stated Jodi would never have went into that woodland alone - and DF asked 'not even if someone was holding a knife to her?'
Also - the reasons for the evidence around this path and of this ban and LM - the ludicrously long time he claimed to have been idling away on Newbattle Road. Knowing and lying of this ban being in place - LM lie? who would have thought eh? Of claiming to be waiting, of not phoning back, of this girl on this isolated path (to which later he introduced her being in the woodland also, at the Gino spot). Of her non appearance on the other side. - we know, as of late he was simply stoned out his nut, and lost track of everything? - Yet for many years, he had never been smoking that evening, according to him and of course Ms Lean?
And you were saying about following my conversations with Ms Lean on the blue forum, yet?
I’ve no idea who ‘Gordo’ is or, indeed, what you are talking about
.
Apologies Mrwah - No more calling posters liars.
-
Apologies I used the word the police - whom exactly was it you were meaning? When you were stating Judith said this?
If you give me the quote I’ll endeavour to help.
And where exactly is my dishonesty well documented? Are we referring to those recordings? Or of LM leading the search onto RDP? Or of just about anything I have said as I have not used transcripts? Those recordings were played. It makes no difference if you or anyone else believes me Faithlilly. They were played in court.
I know recordings were played, it’s just unfortunate that every reference I’ve come across, including the BBC, which mentions the ‘laddie’ comment agrees that it was about Luke and not SK.
And LM did lead this search party onto RDP, I have included AW and of her wishing to look properly.
I’m sure AW did want to look properly and she also knew that that was the path used by Jodi when she met Luke. That’s why she lead the search party back down the path in the direction Luke had just come.
I have also stated that if AW had not wanted to search thoroughly at this point, whilst they were there - then one can be fairly sure they would have ended up on the path regardless - with something to use for the dog to scent with. It is not rocket science. And I will ask again, at what point in time did Judith Jones ban her daughter from using this path, why did she ban her?, what did she actually tell the police? You suggested I should read Judith Jones statements. You obviously have thus why I am asking you again, please.
Jodi used the path, on her own, we know from her sister’s court testimony. We also know from that testimony that Judith knew that Jodi walked it on her own.
And what else had JaJ said in those statements? We know she was confused about these paths? - And we know without a shadow of doubt, the tactics a defence will use in an attempt to trip up witnesses - and on this occasion, it was to try and show that Jodi may have walked the path alone - to show favour upon LM, not to cause doubt in neither JuJ's testimony or that of her daughter - it was to show that Jodi may have disobeyed her mother - nothing more.
I agree, that series of questions was to show that Jodi may have disobeyed her mother. In the course of those questions however JaJ revealed that her mother’ knew fine’ that Jodi did disobey her.
Do you agree that the prosecution are also guilty of using certain tactics in order to trip witnesses up, in this case
unnecessarily showing Luke’s brother photographs of a naked, mutilated Jodi?
As with AW's testimony. When she stated Jodi would never have went into that woodland alone - and DF asked 'not even if someone was holding a knife to her?'
Also - the reasons for the evidence around this path and of this ban and LM - the ludicrously long time he claimed to have been idling away on Newbattle Road. Knowing and lying of this ban being in place - LM lie? who would have thought eh? Of claiming to be waiting, of not phoning back, of this girl on this isolated path (to which later he introduced her being in the woodland also, at the Gino spot). Of her non appearance on the other side. - we know, as of late he was simply stoned out his nut, and lost track of everything? - Yet for many years, he had never been smoking that evening, according to him and of course Ms Lean?
You’d have to ask Dr Lean to clarify that.
And you were saying about following my conversations with Ms Lean on the blue forum, yet?
Ah yes I vaguely remember him.
.
Apologies Mrwah - No more calling posters liars.
-
Why doesn’t Sandra Lean mention this ⬇️
Kirsten's mum Carol said: 'Jodi's mum phoned the night she went missing to ask if Jodi was at our house.
'We both knew then something was wrong. Next day when we heard a body had been found I just knew it was Jodi.
Sandra exposed again.
She cannot be trusted as a source.
SK also recently revealed his clothes were taken on the night of the murder and his phone.
-
Sandra exposed again.
She cannot be trusted as a source.
SK also recently revealed his clothes were taken on the night of the murder and his phone.
Revealed to whom? Do you have a cite?
-
Does Sandra Lean mention Corinne Mitchell’s potential addiction to cannabis in her book or does she only refer to the teenagers?
Sandra Lean
His "drug use" amounted to smoking cannabis, something which was common to the entire group he hung around with, including Jodi and members of her family, and also including one who had actually supplied Jodi and Luke with their cannabis.
Nothing on Corinne’s ‘drug use’?
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s410.html
-
Sandra exposed again.
She cannot be trusted as a source.
Here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768&page=4
Sandra Lean stated (22nd August 2019, 12:22 AM)
‘The girl lived in Kenmore, which is, in fact, over two hours' drive from Newbattle, where Luke lived (for some reason, having been there many times in my younger days, I thought it was just over an hour away).
Luke still spoke with her on the phone, but they had not been together physically since New Year 2003 - he and Jodi got together around the end of March, beginning of April that year.
Who was he with on Valentine’s Day?
What Sandra Lean won’t tell your ⬇️
’Luke Mitchell lied to police about his affair with a lookalike of murdered 14-year-old Jodi Jones, appeal judges heard.
He did not want officers to know he had spent three hours on the phone to Kimberley Thomson in Kenmore, Perthshire, immediately after an evening of sex with Jodi, said advocate depute John Beckett QC, for the Crown.
Although it might be speculation, Kimberley could have been the reason for a fight with Jodi, Mr Beckett told the judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
Mitchell, 19, is trying to overturn his conviction for the killing in Dalkeith, West Lothian, in June 2003.
The jury at his trial in 2004 heard Mitchell was planning to visit Kenmore during the school summer holidays, days after Jodi's death in June 2003.
The trial also heard neither girl seemed to know about the other.
Mr Beckett told the appeal judges: "It offers a possible explanation for conflict with Jodi at the time. "If he was going to disappear to Kenmore to visit a girl Jodi didn't know anything about, the potential for conflict was there."
The judges were informed Mitchell told police investigating the murder he had not spoken to Kimberley since January 2003, but records showed 79 calls between then and the end of June.
There was also a Valentine's Day visit.
Just two days before her murder, Jodi left Mitchell's house, by taxi, about 10pm. After that there was a series of long telephone calls, totalling more than three hours.
Mr Beckett said it was an example of how Mitchell was prepared to lie, even in the face of known evidence.
Earlier, the court heard the fact Mitchell led members of Jodi's family to where her body was found was "a cornerstone" of the case against him.
The QC said his story about finding Jodi was contradicted by the girl's gran, Alice Walker, Jodi's sister, Janine, and Janine's fiance, Steven Kelly.
Mr Beckett also claimed Mitchell had later lied six times when questioned by police about the find.
The hearing continues.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12799875.judges-told-mitchell-lied-about-affair/
-
Here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768&page=4
Sandra Lean stated (22nd August 2019, 12:22 AM)
‘The girl lived in Kenmore, which is, in fact, over two hours' drive from Newbattle, where Luke lived (for some reason, having been there many times in my younger days, I thought it was just over an hour away).
Luke still spoke with her on the phone, but they had not been together physically since New Year 2003 - he and Jodi got together around the end of March, beginning of April that year.
Who was he with on Valentine’s Day?
They had!
‘Mr Mitchell visited Kenmore in the autumn of 2002 and Miss Thomson stayed at the Mitchell home in Dalkeith from Boxing Day until just after New Year.
The accused also visited her on St Valentine's Day 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
-
Revealed to whom? Do you have a cite?
(https://i.imgur.com/TpsfjaY.png)
So many things Lean claims keep getting contradicted by people who were actually there at the time...
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TpsfjaY.png)
So many things Lean claims keep getting contradicted by people who were actually there at the time...
Number8 eh.
I was the Mitchell’s next door next door neighbour and I definitely saw Luke leave his home about 17.40 on the night of the murder.
Do you see how it works?
-
It's common knowledge that is SK. He has verified it on there and spoken about it every time it comes up over the years. People who know him personally also post on there. The journalists who reported a named suspect was seeking legal action after the documentary also got his information directly from N8's post on that forum. He also mentioned working alongside Sandra in the SQA for a number of years.
One of the jury members also post on there, and is equally disgusted at the documentary.
https://imgur.com/XqwudtA
https://imgur.com/4WiCB19
https://imgur.com/6e0w9wG
https://imgur.com/ivj60Eu
https://imgur.com/B6Q1yRI
https://imgur.com/H8dwHSD
https://imgur.com/JCXYv51
https://imgur.com/xNBe6nO
https://imgur.com/Ssp9GBi
https://imgur.com/TnDxM35
https://imgur.com/266INsT
https://imgur.com/Kof6Qbo
Just a few comments.
-
Number8 eh.
I was the Mitchell’s next door next door neighbour and I definitely saw Luke leave his home about 17.40 on the night of the murder.
Do you see how it works?
It doesn’t work like that though does it
Sandra Lean doesn’t have all the answers to her questions - she’s said so several times 🙄
Doesn’t mean others don’t
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TpsfjaY.png)
So many things Lean claims keep getting contradicted by people who were actually there at the time...
Good for SK
-
It's common knowledge that is SK. He has verified it on there and spoken about it every time it comes up over the years. People who know him personally also post on there. The journalists who reported a named suspect was seeking legal action after the documentary also got his information directly from N8's post on that forum. He also mentioned working alongside Sandra in the SQA for a number of years.
One of the jury members also post on there, and is equally disgusted at the documentary.
https://imgur.com/4WiCB19
https://imgur.com/vt[Name removed]rac
https://imgur.com/6e0w9wG
https://imgur.com/ivj60Eu
https://imgur.com/B6Q1yRI
https://imgur.com/H8dwHSD
https://imgur.com/JCXYv51
https://imgur.com/xNBe6nO
https://imgur.com/Ssp9GBi
https://imgur.com/TnDxM35
https://imgur.com/266INsT
https://imgur.com/Kof6Qbo
Just a few comments.
The first comment is odd. Parky41 said it was SK’s 999 call they played in court and now the poster is saying that they didn’t. They can’t both be right.
Isn’t it common knowledge that SK was upset and swearing at the operator? I’m sure it’s in Dr Lean’s book.
-
I’m sure it’s in Dr Lean’s book.
Doesn't stand for much then lol.
Would that be the same book that said SK was on the path at the time of murder?
The same book that said no one elses clothes were taken?
The same book that said the moped was "spotted" at the v break in the wall at the time of death?
@)(++(*
-
Doesn't stand for much then lol.
Would that be the same book that said SK was on the path at the time of murder?
The same book that said no one elses clothes were taken?
The same book that said the moped was "spotted" at the v break in the wall at the time of death?
@)(++(*
Not the SK mistake...that was No Smoke.
Seems your mysterious poster is verifying much of what Dr Lean has written.
What’s the forum?
-
Lean also reiterated the lie in her most recent "Q&A" with her fanclub (lol) that no one else's phone was taken.
SK's 8210 was.
It's no mystery that that's SK.
It's a football forum.
-
Lean also reiterated the lie in her most recent "Q&A" with her fanclub (lol) that no one else's phone was taken.
SK's 8210 was.
It's no mystery that that's SK.
It's a football forum.
What one?
-
What one?
Followfollow. You won't be able to access that thread unless you have an account with a certain number of posts. It's in the "off topic/general chat" section.
-
Lean also reiterated the lie in her most recent "Q&A" with her fanclub (lol) that no one else's phone was taken.
*&^^&
-
Followfollow. You won't be able to access that thread unless you have an account with a certain number of posts. It's in the "off topic/general chat" section.
There doesn’t seem to be much in the links that weren’t in the public domain.
As to the ‘juror’. Do you think they voted guilty? It’s a lot of responsibility to have put a young man in prison when the evidence didn’t warrant it.
-
There doesn’t seem to be much in the links that weren’t in the public domain.
It’s further proof Sandra Lean is
misleading
lying
wrong
not clear on the facts of the case
-
Lean also reiterated the lie in her most recent "Q&A" with her fanclub (lol) that no one else's phone was taken.
SK's 8210 was.
So much for SL being on the ball with the facts.
-
What's the significance of LM supposedly having another girlfriend?
-
So much for SL being on the ball with the facts.
I notice Sandra Lean is still pushing the false premise that Jane Hamilton from the daily record mis-spelled pored for ‘poured’
Sandra Lean
I would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead....
I don’t believe her
-
Thora Allan
‘Hi everyone, here's a copy of our updated rules.’’
The same Thora Allan who falsely claimed Jane Hamilton set a ‘honey trap’ for LM - even though she wasn’t at the DR back in 2014 when a journalist was meant to have written to him posing as a teenager
*&^^&
-
What's the significance of LM supposedly having another girlfriend?
Some people think that was the motive for him murdering Jodi.
-
The first comment is odd. Parky41 said it was SK’s 999 call they played in court and now the poster is saying that they didn’t. They can’t both be right.
Isn’t it common knowledge that SK was upset and swearing at the operator? I’m sure it’s in Dr Lean’s book.
Not quite what I said at all, of what I was clearly meaning. - I stated that the recordings where played, to show how LM was in the call. They were played by DF. That part of the recordings which were played, he was attempting to show as LM who was in a right state. AT then pointed out that is was in fact SK who was speaking in that recording. LM was very much the flat affect that was heard "I think I have found something, I think it is a body, erm, aye it could be a body" SK was screaming down the phone, the operator had to repeatedly tell him to calm down. "It's a f..king body" The distinction was shown, that LM was very much the one who did not sound like someone who had just come across a dead body, SK was the one that "the laddies in a right state" LM very much deliberating over what had been found - SK was right to the point. As LM was faffing about. Then of the call with the police, of leading them a merry dance. He knew exactly where they were, saying to the police 'do you know where this is, well if you go there we will shine our torches'
Therefore it has been a total misconception as to who was in a right state - manipulation of the evidence actually heard in court. And of FS and to the present day. It may very well say one thing in those defence papers of different calls, and of the above mentioned. It was clearly shown in court however - that it was SK that the operator was referring to, when she said the "laddie was in a right state" It was his voice and not that of LM.
Yes it may very well be in her book - but not of him being upset, she tallies "it's a f..king body" in with "not what one would expect from someone who had found a body" - and she claims the "in a right state" was LM. - It was clearly shown that the operator was referring to LM and his flat affect as being "not what someone would expect" And it was SK and his screaming who was in "a right state".
-
Not quite what I said at all, of what I was clearly meaning. - I stated that the recordings where played, to show how LM was in the call. They were played by DF. That part of the recordings which were played, he was attempting to show as LM who was in a right state. AT then pointed out that is was in fact SK who was speaking in that recording. LM was very much the flat affect that was heard "I think I have found something, I think it is a body, erm, aye it could be a body" SK was screaming down the phone, the operator had to repeatedly tell him to calm down. "It's a f..king body" The distinction was shown, that LM was very much the one who did not sound like someone who had just come across a dead body, SK was the one that "the laddies in a right state" LM very much deliberating over what had been found - SK was right to the point. As LM was faffing about. Then of the call with the police, of leading them a merry dance. He knew exactly where they were, saying to the police 'do you know where this is, well if you go there we will shine our torches'
Therefore it has been a total misconception as to who was in a right state - manipulation of the evidence actually heard in court. And of FS and to the present day. It may very well say one thing in those defence papers of different calls, and of the above mentioned. It was clearly shown in court however - that it was SK that the operator was referring to, when she said the "laddie was in a right state" It was his voice and not that of LM.
Yes it may very well be in her book - but not of him being upset, she tallies "it's a f..king body" in with "not what one would expect from someone who had found a body" - and she claims the "in a right state" was LM. - It was clearly shown that the operator was referring to LM and his flat affect as being "not what someone would expect" And it was SK and his screaming who was in "a right state".
“ What I really want to pick up on here is the actual part of what the operator said "the laddies in a right state" used when Ms Lean makes an attempt to show that Luke was not emotionless. Luke was calm and collective in his call, it was SK who was extremely distressed he was the "laddie in a right state" The defence attempted to use this at trial, until the actual recordings were played clearly showing it was the call from SK and not LM who was "in a right state."
“The lads in a bit of of panic’
Frontline 23 minutes approx.
-
Some people think that was the motive for him murdering Jodi.
But it didn't even feature in the prosecution case at trial.
-
What's the significance of LM supposedly having another girlfriend?
Some people think that was the motive for him murdering Jodi.
It displays his deceptive nature
-
But it didn't even feature in the prosecution case at trial.
Yes it did?
-
There doesn’t seem to be much in the links that weren’t in the public domain.
As to the ‘juror’. Do you think they voted guilty? It’s a lot of responsibility to have put a young man in prison when the evidence didn’t warrant it.
What do you think?
https://imgur.com/HDh0Cj5
https://imgur.com/5FzI6P7
https://imgur.com/cphbxix
-
What do you think?
https://imgur.com/HDh0Cj5
https://imgur.com/5FzI6P7
https://imgur.com/cphbxix
What do I think? I think poster offers no proof that he is who he says he is but anything’s possible. The jury convicted Luke by a majority verdict so it obvious some thought him guilty so no surprise there. What was I meant to think?
-
But it didn't even feature in the prosecution case at trial.
Of course it did - KT was a witness in court. To show the lies he told, of the plan to meet, and of possible reason for conflict between Luke and Jodi that evening, once they met. This girl bore a striking resemblance to Jodi herself. .
-
Of course it did - KT was a witness in court. To show the lies he told, of the plan to meet, and of possible reason for conflict between Luke and Jodi that evening, once they met. This girl bore a striking resemblance to Jodi herself. .
Luke had a type. Nothing sinister in that. There was plans for the Mitchells to go to the town where KT lived, a place where they had gone on holiday before. Those plans were cancelled...KT said as much in court. Luke hadn’t seen KT since Valentine’s Day...I believe before he started going out with Jodi. Luke had made no effort to visit KT since then even though it would have been quite simple to do so. There was texts and phone calls but what really didn’t they amount to but the dying embers of a holiday romance that Luke had failed thus far to end.
-
Luke had a type. Nothing sinister in that. There was plans for the Mitchells to go to the town where KT lived, a place where they had gone on holiday before. Those plans were cancelled...KT said as much in court. Luke hadn’t seen KT since Valentine’s Day...I believe before he started going out with Jodi. Luke had made no effort to visit KT since then even though it would have been quite simple to do so. There was texts and phone calls but what really didn’t they amount to but the dying embers of a holiday romance that Luke had failed thus far to end.
Where did KT live?
-
Where did KT live?
Kenmore in Perthshire....a couple of hours in a car from Newbattle.
-
Luke had a type. Nothing sinister in that. There was plans for the Mitchells to go to the town where KT lived, a place where they had gone on holiday before. Those plans were cancelled...KT said as much in court. Luke hadn’t seen KT since Valentine’s Day...I believe before he started going out with Jodi. Luke had made no effort to visit KT since then even though it would have been quite simple to do so. There was texts and phone calls but what really didn’t they amount to but the dying embers of a holiday romance that Luke had failed thus far to end.
Not so simple after all. Holiday times only. KT stayed near to Aviemore, Kenmore where the Mitchells holidayed. He didn't just have the opportunity to pop and see her. His mothers work commitments and so forth - What he did have is every opportunity to speak with her, and he did. Whilst it may not be so unusual for people to cheat, young and older alike. It showed several things. That he was not quite caught up in love with Jodi as he claimed. He was even at this young age, deceitful and a cheat. And a compulsive liar. You can not speak for him and claim he had not gotten around to finishing with her? - he had no intention of finishing with her and he had been planning to meet with her, on his next holiday up. - scuppered only by the fact that Jodi had been murdered by him. That when he did go to Aviemore he was already prime suspect in her murder.
That whilst these young girls may have been caught up in the first flourishes of young love - LM most definitely was not. Clearly fooling around with other girls, and was in tow with other girls barely any time after Jodi's death. And it is clear that there was every chance that Jodi had found out about this relationship and confronted him. And we know that LM did not like confrontation - therefore more that feasible that he flew into a rage and lashed out at Jodi that day, due to this. Her extracts and complete infatuation with this boy, only show more so of how upset she would have been upon discovering him cheating? - We hear she was a feisty young girl who would speak her mind, who would indeed have faced up to him, confronted him upon this discovery - Nothing however could have shown her what he was truly capable of and she paid the price - he murdered her.
-
Kenmore in Perthshire....a couple of hours in a car from Newbattle.
That's what I thought - a nice drive if you have an adult to drive you.
Not straightforward to get to using public transport.
-
Not so simple after all. Holiday times only. KT stayed near to Aviemore, Kenmore where the Mitchells holidayed. He didn't just have the opportunity to pop and see her. His mothers work commitments and so forth - What he did have is every opportunity to speak with her, and he did. Whilst it may not be so unusual for people to cheat, young and older alike. It showed several things. That he was not quite caught up in love with Jodi as he claimed. He was even at this young age, deceitful and a cheat. And a compulsive liar. You can not speak for him and claim he had not gotten around to finishing with her? - he had no intention of finishing with her and he had been planning to meet with her, on his next holiday up. - scuppered only by the fact that Jodi had been murdered by him. That when he did go to Aviemore he was already prime suspect in her murder.
The holiday had been cancelled, KT admitted as much on in court.
Miss Thomson said Mr Mitchell was supposed to visit her last summer but this was "cancelled".
“The teenager believed the visit was due to have been the weekend before Jodi was murdered but, when questioned about whether it could have been later, she said she could not remember”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
If, as you say, Corrine would do anything for Luke, up to and including covering up his girlfriend’s murder, do you really think that she’d baulk at driving Luke a couple of hours to see his girlfriend on a weekend ? Did he arrange another meet after the first trip was cancelled?
From the same article.
“ Mr Turnbull asked if she had sent a text message to Mr Mitchell demanding an explanation.
"I cannot remember," Miss Thomson replied.”
She had just found out that her boyfriend had another girlfriend and was a potential murderer and she ‘ couldn't remember’ whether she’d called him or sent a text demanding answers. Really?
Luke never met with KT after he started going out with Jodi. The cancelled holiday was a family holiday not a planned excursion to enable Luke and KT to meet.
“ Miss Thomson said they phoned each other and may have sent text messages as well.”
‘May have’ sent text messages? Does this really sound to you that this ‘romance’ was very serious?
.
That whilst these young girls may have been caught up in the first flourishes of young love - LM most definitely was not. Clearly fooling around with other girls, and was in tow with other girls barely any time after Jodi's death. And it is clear that there was every chance that Jodi had found out about this relationship and confronted him. And we know that LM did not like confrontation - therefore more that feasible that he flew into a rage and lashed out at Jodi that day, due to this. Her extracts and complete infatuation with this boy, only show more so of how upset she would have been upon discovering him cheating? - We hear she was a feisty young girl who would speak her mind, who would indeed have faced up to him, confronted him upon this discovery - Nothing however could have shown her what he was truly capable of and she paid the price - he murdered her.
When did Jodi find out about this ‘relationship’ ? She was ‘completely infatuated’ with Luke yet there was certainly no sign of her being upset between coming in from school and leaving to meet Luke. Her mother describes her as acting perfectly normally....so how and when did she find out about the ‘other woman’ ? And where is the evidence that Luke was ‘ in toe with other girls barely anytime after Jodi’s death’ ? Did these girls appear in court? Give statements or is it simply more tabloid tittle tattle?
-
That's what I thought - a nice drive if you have an adult to drive you.
Not straightforward to get to using public transport.
But Luke had his mother wrapped around his little finger. Would do anything for him. Even covered up his part in a murder. Do you think she’d refuse to drive him to this girl who, we are lead to believe, he was in a committed relationship with? And the cancelled holiday? How did he react to that? Did he kick up a fuss, we’re lead to believe he didn’t like to be denied anything? Did he demand to be driven to see KT anyway?
What is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with KT was not simply a teenage holiday romance that had died a death once he met Jodi?
-
But Luke had his mother wrapped around his little finger. Would do anything for him. Even covered up his part in a murder. Do you think she’d refuse to drive him to this girl who, we are lead to believe, he was in a committed relationship with? And the cancelled holiday? How did he react to that? Did he kick up a fuss, we’re lead to believe he didn’t like to be denied anything? Did he demand to be driven to see KT anyway?
What is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with KT was not simply a teenage holiday romance that had died a death once he met Jodi?
You said it yourself- there were still calls and texts - we'll never know the content of those.
-
Luke had a type.
Yes vulnerable young girls
-
Luke hadn’t seen KT since Valentine’s Day...
Why did Sandra Lean lie about this?
-
You said it yourself- there were still calls and texts - we'll never know the content of those.
‘May have sent texts’.
Seems rather vague when they were supposed to be boyfriend and girlfriend.
-
Why did Sandra Lean lie about this?
I’ve no idea. Perhaps you need to ask her that? I’m quoting from KT’s sworn testimony.
-
But Luke had his mother wrapped around his little finger
I don’t agree
Suspect there’s a lot we don’t know about their relationship
-
What is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with KT was not simply a teenage holiday romance that had died a death once he met Jodi?
Is there a reason you haven’t figured in the other Kim ?
-
Did he demand to be driven to see KT anyway?
How did he get to Kenmore on Valentine’s Day?
I’m quoting from KT’s sworn testimony.
And what did KT say in her sworn testimony about that?
-
But Luke had his mother wrapped around his little finger.
How much cannabis was Corinne smoking before her son committed murder?
-
Is there a reason you haven’t figured in the other Kim ?
Because there’s no evidence that there was another Kim.
-
Because there’s no evidence that there was another Kim.
It’s your choice to deny reality
-
But Luke had his mother wrapped around his little finger. Would do anything for him. Even covered up his part in a murder. Do you think she’d refuse to drive him to this girl who, we are lead to believe, he was in a committed relationship with? And the cancelled holiday? How did he react to that? Did he kick up a fuss, we’re lead to believe he didn’t like to be denied anything? Did he demand to be driven to see KT anyway?
What is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with KT was not simply a teenage holiday romance that had died a death once he met Jodi?
The Mitchells still went to Aviemore that summer. What exactly are the points one is trying to make around her? - There was numerous communication between them. The logs show this. They weren't to someone else - they were with her. They had planned to meet up again. Whilst his initial trip was postponed. The Mitchells still went ahead at a later date. LM murdering Jodi stopped any further relationship - nothing more. - He lied about everything to do with this girl of being in contact with her over the period of time, of him seeing Jodi. - he simply could have been honest - But he was not, not about anything.
LM was/is a compulsive liar - You can enter into any and all realms or irrationality as much as one may. This ridiculous notion that Jodi had to have been stomping out the door to confront him. This young girl was happy at not having punishments upon her anymore. That we do know clearly.- We can all add any arms and legs if one must?
Happy to not having to wait until a later time, to get off her chest all these questions she may have had for him. Of getting him told, then bang. - he flies into that rage, lashes out and murders her. He was already somewhat irked with her. She had been a little later, staying back to listen to some music with her mother. He was upset at being kept waiting. Those texts from her mothers phone, already saying to him that she was not happy with him? The ones he had to delete - he deleted them for he knew the incrimination that they held. Of the meet just short of 5pm. Of any confrontation and so forth. Sound reason as to why Jodi scrubbed those texts, it was her mothers phone. No reason other than lame excuses as to why LM scrubbed his - he scrubbed them because they were incriminating.
He did not like being kept waiting, he chased the boys in the abbey up - and again lame excuses given for him, for this, on behalf of him.That there was some confusion as to where the meet was supposed to be. In LM's fantasy world perhaps of those who make up his evidence for him. - no confusion when he claimed to have told his mother "tell her I'll be in the Abbey, she will know where" - nope, this girl had been banned from walking this path, LM introduced the notion of the woodland later that evening at the Gino spot, and again by implication - that Jodi would know where, that she would be wandering into the woods of the Abbey on her own also. - nonsense. Jodi was already dead, he had murdered her. He chased those boys up, phoning them back as he needed to be in their company. He needed that cover and he did not like to be kept waiting. He had already disposed and cleaned up of evidence, cleaner than his normal self when he met them. As with his short spell on Newbattle R'd - LM needed to be seen. And he stayed just long enough again - leaving them much earlier that what was actually of habit for him, of usually arriving home at ten and after - He left them at 9pm, he did not arrive home then, he was witnessed going into his house at 10pm - Lies to cover up lies to cover up more lies. - so scrape away with irrationality as much as one needs to - LM was a liar. You can not change that, the lies are already there in abundance in black and white and by voice in those interviews. - You can not alter his evidence for him. Change his story and paint him anything other, than the liar he was. - too late.
And of commitment to KT. to any girl? - what commitment? Complete commitment would have been having no communication with this other girl. Of not having further plans to meet on that next holiday that summer. There was no commitment . He just spent an intimate evening with Jodi, less than 48hrs before her death - and he was instantly communicating with KT, of the meet coming up. - Devious and a compulsive liar.
-
The Mitchells still went to Aviemore that summer. What exactly are the points one is trying to make around her? - There was numerous communication between them. The logs show this. They weren't to someone else - they were with her. They had planned to meet up again. Whilst his initial trip was postponed. The Mitchells still went ahead at a later date. LM murdering Jodi stopped any further relationship - nothing more. - He lied about everything to do with this girl of being in contact with her over the period of time, of him seeing Jodi. - he simply could have been honest - But he was not, not about anything.
LM was/is a compulsive liar - You can enter into any and all realms or irrationality as much as one may. This ridiculous notion that Jodi had to have been stomping out the door to confront him. This young girl was happy at not having punishments upon her anymore. That we do know clearly.- We can all add any arms and legs if one must?
Happy to not having to wait until a later time, to get off her chest all these questions she may have had for him. Of getting him told, then bang. - he flies into that rage, lashes out and murders her. He was already somewhat irked with her. She had been a little later, staying back to listen to some music with her mother. He was upset at being kept waiting. Those texts from her mothers phone, already saying to him that she was not happy with him? The ones he had to delete - he deleted them for he knew the incrimination that they held. Of the meet just short of 5pm. Of any confrontation and so forth. Sound reason as to why Jodi scrubbed those texts, it was her mothers phone. No reason other than lame excuses as to why LM scrubbed his - he scrubbed them because they were incriminating.
He did not like being kept waiting, he chased the boys in the abbey up - and again lame excuses given for him, for this, on behalf of him.That there was some confusion as to where the meet was supposed to be. In LM's fantasy world perhaps of those who make up his evidence for him. - no confusion when he claimed to have told his mother "tell her I'll be in the Abbey, she will know where" - nope, this girl had been banned from walking this path, LM introduced the notion of the woodland later that evening at the Gino spot, and again by implication - that Jodi would know where, that she would be wandering into the woods of the Abbey on her own also. - nonsense. Jodi was already dead, he had murdered her. He chased those boys up, phoning them back as he needed to be in their company. He needed that cover and he did not like to be kept waiting. He had already disposed and cleaned up of evidence, cleaner than his normal self when he met them. As with his short spell on Newbattle R'd - LM needed to be seen. And he stayed just long enough again - leaving them much earlier that what was actually of habit for him, of usually arriving home at ten and after - He left them at 9pm, he did not arrive home then, he was witnessed going into his house at 10pm - Lies to cover up lies to cover up more lies. - so scrape away with irrationality as much as one needs to - LM was a liar. You can not change that, the lies are already there in abundance in black and white and by voice in those interviews. - You can not alter his evidence for him. Change his story and paint him anything other, than the liar he was. - too late.
And of commitment to KT. to any girl? - what commitment? Complete commitment would have been having no communication with this other girl. Of not having further plans to meet on that next holiday that summer. There was no commitment . He just spent an intimate evening with Jodi, less than 48hrs before her death - and he was instantly communicating with KT, of the meet coming up. - Devious and a compulsive liar.
You don't expect a 14 year old boy to "commit" to any one girl, do you? I would imagine that is very rare!
Against my better judgment, I actually enjoy your posts, Parky. I don't often agree with them, but they do make me think !
I'd love to know what makes you so sure of your views, though. I'm not at all sure about mine.
-
You don't expect a 14 year old boy to "commit" to any one girl, do you? I would imagine that is very rare!
Against my better judgment, I actually enjoy your posts, Parky. I don't often agree with them, but they do make me think !
I'd love to know what makes you so sure of your views, though. I'm not at all sure about mine.
Are you judging Luke Mitchell by your own experiences ?
He made claim to be suicidal before he met [Name removed] - do you think this claim holds much water?
They met in March 2003
So why was he allegedly suicidal up until this point?
And what do [Name removed]’s diaries say about Luke Mitchell and suicide?
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Struggling to see what's funny about this.
-
Struggling to see what's funny about this.
I'm struggling, too.
-
I don’t agree
Suspect there’s a lot we don’t know about their relationship
I don't think Faithlilly was being serious when she said this!
There is a lot we don't know about anyone's relationships.
-
I don't think Faithlilly was being serious when she said this!
There is a lot we don't know about anyone's relationships.
You’re absolutely right mrswah.
-
‘But only weeks into the relationship, Jodi became worried about Mitchell's close friendship with Laura Wightman, a girl he would later take to her graveside.
Kirsten said: 'Laura was with Luke a lot and once Jodi heard that he might have been cheating on her but I think she spoke to him and they sorted it out.'
The court also hears a statement given to police by 15-year-old Laura Wightman, Jodi's best friend, in which she talks about Mitchell owning a 'penknife with different tools on it'.
In her statement, Laura said she 'went radge' when Mitchell bought a new knife last December, months after Jodi's death.
She also told police that she 'maybe' saw Mitchell with a knife pouch when she went to Pizza Hut with Jodi and Mitchell the Friday before Jodi's murder.
The court hears a policeman asked Laura if Mitchell had ever confessed to her that he had killed Jodi.
She replies: 'No. See, if he had told me he had done it, I would have killed him there and then and it would be me sitting in jail now.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/amp/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+In+terms+of+the+location+and+type+of...-a0126827148
-
It displays his deceptive nature
Bingo! And it is highly relevant, despite his age at the time. Being unfaithful, at any age, is wrong on so many levels; it’s actually quite evil, imo. What else is the cheater capable of? I remember dating a girl in high school and she cheated on me . . . I was numb. I was a confident, likeable and popular guy, but I remember feeling so violated by it. It was horrible. Then, after a few days, I realised that she must be a complete s..mbag for doing what she did — especially as we were getting on really well for the 3 months we were going out and had never had a single argument in that time — and it made me realise she must be deeply flawed and not worthy of me. Bottom line is: being unfaithful is wrong, regardless of age. LM, in my opinion, was devious, cunning and manipulative; he would cheat in a heartbeat and not think anything of it.
-
Bingo! And it is highly relevant
You won’t get ‘highly relevant’ facts from Sandra Lean
-
But Luke had his mother wrapped around his little finger. Would do anything for him. Even covered up his part in a murder. Do you think she’d refuse to drive him to this girl who, we are lead to believe, he was in a committed relationship with? And the cancelled holiday? How did he react to that? Did he kick up a fuss, we’re lead to believe he didn’t like to be denied anything? Did he demand to be driven to see KT anyway?
What is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with KT was not simply a teenage holiday romance that had died a death once he met Jodi?
Your first paragraph is indicative of someone who is clutching at proverbial straws. Your posts are chiefly well thought-out and balanced, often giving the reader something to think about. Not the above,
though; it is completely bereft of logic and quite possibly the nadir of your posts. Must do better.
-
Your first paragraph is indicative of someone who is clutching at proverbial straws. Your posts are chiefly well thought-out and balanced, often giving the reader something to think about. Not the above,
though; it is completely bereft of logic and quite possibly the nadir of your posts. Must do better.
Your opinion is noted but moving on, what is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with the other girl was in anyway serious? Apart from a few texts and phone calls is there any other evidence? Had he say attempted to visit her or her him?
-
Your opinion is noted but moving on, what is the evidence that Luke’s relationship with the other girl was in anyway serious? Apart from a few texts and phone calls is there any other evidence? Had he say attempted to visit her or her him?
She testified in court that she thought she was LM’s girlfriend. Luke had never mentioned Jodi to her in a full year and, I would guess, vice versa. The fact he frequently kept in touch with her (the call logs proved he had made around 70-80 calls to her between Jan 2003 and June 2003) for so long would indicate he was keen on her. Didn’t Luke boast to friends of how much she and Jodi looked alike?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
-
She testified in court that she thought she was LM’s girlfriend. Luke had never mentioned Jodi to her in a full year and, I would guess, vice versa. The fact he frequently kept in touch with her (the call logs proved he had made around 70-80 calls to her between Jan 2003 and June 2003) for so long would indicate he was keen on her. Didn’t Luke boast to friends of how much she and Jodi looked alike?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
Not keen enough to actually visit her or have her visit him I presume.
They were teenagers. I’m afraid that we’re looking at these relationships with an adult’s eye and experience.
-
Not keen enough to actually visit her or have her visit him I presume.
They were teenagers. I’m afraid that we’re looking at these relationships with an adult’s eye and experience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
not sure if youll accept bbc news as fact but article states:
Mr Mitchell visited Kenmore in the autumn of 2002 and Miss Thomson stayed at the Mitchell home in Dalkeith from Boxing Day until just after New Year.
The accused also visited her on St Valentine's Day 2003.
significant dates and quite a lot of time over christmas and new year for a teenager to stay at anothers house without their parents or family.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
not sure if youll accept bbc news as fact but article states:
significant dates and quite a lot of time over christmas and new year for a teenager to stay at anothers house without their parents or family.
When did Luke and Jodie start dating? Christmas 2002? Valentine’s Day 2003?
-
Here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768&page=4
Sandra Lean stated (22nd August 2019, 12:22 AM)
‘The girl lived in Kenmore, which is, in fact, over two hours' drive from Newbattle, where Luke lived (for some reason, having been there many times in my younger days, I thought it was just over an hour away).
Luke still spoke with her on the phone, but they had not been together physically since New Year 2003 - he and Jodi got together around the end of March, beginning of April that year.
Who was he with on Valentine’s Day?
What did Kimberley Thomson tell the court about walking on Roan Dykes path with killer Luke Mitchell?
-
Stumbled upon quite a few historical articles last night which might be of interest to the boardmembers on this site. The first one features an interview by Kimberley Thomson circa ‘06. Now, I presume most participants on this forum are aware of KT as LM’s ‘other girlfriend’ in the case, but wondered how many knew that Luke was meant to have been meeting her soon after June 30th, 2003? Was this a separate arrangement from the holiday that was cancelled — the same place where he originally met Kimberley the previous year? Now, unless someone can prove otherwise, I can’t question the veracity of the contents of this particular article. Sure, the interview is a tad obtuse, and KT was a bit on the young side to be having a child (at 17), but that doesn’t make her a liar or any less a member of society. And bearing in mind that police could prove, from retrieved telecommunication logs, that LM had made 78 calls to KT between Jan ‘03 & Jun ‘03 (LM allegedly lied about this), as well as the other text messages we all know about. It’s also noteworthy that the article out states that Judith ran out of court screaming when she heard the KT evidence. What do you take from the article below?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+want+Luke+to+know+that+he+hasn%27t+ruined+my+life%3B+EXCLUSIVE+KILLER%27S...-a0155357337
Were all 78 calls to the same KT ?
-
As to Jodi’s friend’s interview, it says that the Sunday Mail was with Kirsten when the guilty verdict came through. To me this suggests that an arrangement had been made before hand for an exclusive, paid for interview and the Sunday Mail were protecting their investment.
This is not what happened
No money was paid to Kirsten Ford or her mother
-
While it is unfair to compare a 14-year-old’s emotional and physical involvement in intimate relationships to that of an adult’s (I’m sure some of us two-timed or were two-timed at least once back when we were teenagers), it is worth noting that is was proved that LM had lied about his contact with KT (the logs detailing his phone calls to her between jan ‘03 and jun ‘03 being a prime example). Per se, the lying about their relationship may not have been the most crucial of evidence, but when combined with all of the other evidence it does become important.
Again, there were two Kimberley Thomson’s, one was 14 and one was 11 years old
-
Again, there were two Kimberley Thomson’s, one was 14 and one was 11 years old
The younger one became a model